IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-11333
Summary Calendar
DANTE D’AGOSTINO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DARWIN D. SANDERS ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:97-CV-360
- - - - - - - - - -
June 12, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dante D’Agostino, Texas state prisoner # 688309, has
appealed the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights
action against several officials, officers, and employees of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
(TDCJ). We AFFIRM.
In his complaint, D’Agostino alleged claims against one
group of defendants based on events which allegedly occurred when
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-11333
-2-
he was a patient at TDCJ’s John T. Montford Psychiatric Hospital
Unit (Montford). D’Agostino’s other claims are based on events
which allegedly occurred while he was participating in TDCJ’s
Program for Aggressive Mentally Ill Offenders (PAMIO), located in
Clements Unit. These TDCJ units are located in different
divisions of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.
D’Agostino’s principal contention is that he has a serious
medical need for intensive one-on-one psychiatric or
psychological counseling, which has been denied him while he has
been a PAMIO participant. The district court did not err by
dismissing these claims as frivolous, because they are based
merely on D’Agostino’s disagreement with members of the PAMIO
medical staff concerning the type of treatment which he should
receive. See Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.
1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
severing D’Agostino’s claims against the Montford defendants and
dismissing them without prejudice, because they are similarly
frivolous.
D’Agostino complains that the district court did not
specifically advert to his claims against Dr. Revell and
“Dr. John Doe,” whom he now knows to be a Dr. Hurley. Since
these claims also are based on events which allegedly occurred
while D’Agostino was at Montford, the district court must have
intended to sever them and dismiss them without prejudice.
No. 97-11333
-3-
D’Agostino is not entitled to relief relative to them, however,
because they are frivolous as Eighth Amendment claims.
D’Agostino has not briefed any claim of improper or
inadequate medical treatment for his back, which allegedly may
have occurred since he has been at Clements Unit. Thus, he has
abandoned any such appellate point. See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle, 69
F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir. 1995).
D’Agostino contends that the district court erred by
dismissing his claims against Warden Sanders of Clements Unit,
for failing to correct the violations of his rights by unit
personnel. This lacks merit because, as stated ante, the
district court did not err by dismissing D’Agostino’s claims
against the other Clements defendants as frivolous.
D’Agostino asserts that the district court should have
preliminarily enjoined a new TDCJ policy reducing the number of
items of legal materials which an inmate (who cannot go to the
law library in person) can request. As the district court held,
D’Agostino is not entitled to relief relative to this policy
because he failed to allege facts which show that it has
prejudiced him in regard to any of his pending legal actions.
See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-55 (1996). Furthermore,
the dismissal of the action rendered moot his request for a
preliminary injunction. See Cypress Barn, Inc. v. Western Elec.
Co., 812 F.2d 1363, 1364 (11th Cir. 1987).
D’Agostino has moved for a stay of the proceedings of this
No. 97-11333
-4-
appeal and of his other pending federal appeals. He also has
moved for other relief in the nature of mandamus, which “is an
extraordinary remedy that should be granted only in the clearest
and most compelling cases.” In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th
Cir. 1987). Because D’Agostino has not shown that he is entitled
to such relief, his motions are DENIED.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.